National Housewares, Inc., et al.
Volume 87 · 87 F.T.C. 346
Extraction note: this decision's boundaries or caption were hard to read automatically; check the source volume.
Cite this decision
National Housewares, Inc., et al., 87 F.T.C. 346 (1976). Consumer Law Library, https://consumerlawlibrary.org/decisions/v087-0042
Report an error in this record (decision id v087-0042)
Cited by 0 later FTC decisions
Cites
Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)
IK THE MATTERS OF NATIONAL HOUSEWARES, INC., ET AL. Docket 8733 E:VIDEKO I:-TERXATIO:-AL, INC., ET AL. Docket 897:J Onia, Fed. 26' , 1976 Respondents' motion for an order that complaint counsel furnish them copies of thrf'C memoranda pr('pared by members of Commission s staff remanded to administrative law judge for decision and determination whethf'I' an immediate appeal would be appropriate.
Appearal1ces For the Commission: Ralph E. Stone, Gerald E. Wright and John M. Pm-ter.
For the respondents: Edwin S. Rockefeller and Alan M. Frey, Bierbower& Rockefeller Washington, D.
ORDER REMANDING MOTION TO ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE Respondents have moved for an order that complaint counsel furnish them copies of three memoranda prepared by members of the Commission s staff. The administrative law judge had previously denied respondents' application for discovery of these documents on the grounds that they were not relevant to any of the issues in these cases and they were privileged. Respondents now claim that the question of the discoverability of the documents has been resolved because they were included in a file respondents were permitted to inspect.
The administrative law judge has certified the motion to the Commission on the ground that "only the Commission has the authority to direct complaint counsel to disregard rhis J order * * * " Certification of Respondents' Motion for Appropriate Relief, February 3, 1976 p. 2. However, the original application for the staff memoranda was clearly within the law judge s authority to decide, as is the instant motion. See Rules of Practice Section 3.36. Interlocutory review of a law judge s denial of such motions is available only upon a determination by the judge "in writing with justification in support thereof, that the ruling involves a controlling question of law or policy as to which there is suhstantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the ruling may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation or subsequent review wi1 be an inadequate remedy." Rules of Practice, Section :J.23(h). The law judge should therefore, decide the instant motion and then determine whether an NATIONAL HOCSEWARES, INC., ET AL.
Order 23(b). Seeimmediate appeal would be appropriate under Rule 3. Newberry Co. 80 F.T.G. 10:17 (1972). Accordingly, It is ordered That the aforesaid motion be, ami it hereby is remanded to the administrative Jaw judge. 148 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIOK DECISIONS Complaint 87 FTC.